Eleventh Circuit holds that arbitration agreement in
collective bargaining contract for seamen is enforceable under Convention on
the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which supersedes
relevant portions of the Seaman’s Wage Act
His employer, Celebrity Cruises, Inc. (Defendant) required
Ignacio Eufemio Lobo (Plaintiff), a stateroom attendant on a passenger ship, to
share his gratuities with his assistant by paying the assistant $1.20 per
passenger per day from his own earnings. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
imposed this requirement through duress as a result of the unequal bargaining
position of the parties. This requirement breaches the collective bargaining
agreement governing the terms of his employment, which include gratuities as
part of a stateroom attendant’s pay.
Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court. The Defendant
moved to dismiss on the grounds that, pursuant to the same collective
bargaining agreement, his wage claim must be sent to arbitration. Plaintiff
responded that the arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement
was invalid because it conflicted with both the Seaman’s Wage Act which gives
seamen the right to access federal courts to resolve wage disputes, 46 U.S.C.
Section 10313, and the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. Bulk Carriers, Inc. v.
Arguelles, 400 U.S. 351 (1971). The district court dismissed the complaint
ruling that the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
Arbitral Awards (the Convention) 9 U.S.C. Sections 202‑208 the Seaman’s Wage
Act and Arguelles had been superseded by. Plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The Court affirms, holding that the Convention superseded the Seaman’s Wage Act and that Arguelles did not apply here.
“In Arguelles, the Court considered whether the provisions of the Seaman’s Wage Act were displaced by the subsequent enactment of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), which ‘provides a federal remedy to enforce grievance and arbitration provisions of collective‑bargaining agreements’ in commercial industries. Supra, at 352. The Supreme Court held that the LMRA did not abrogate the Seaman’s Wage Act remedy.” [Slip op. 2].
In the Court’s view, “the underlying basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in Arguelles was the fact that there was nothing in the language or legislative history of the LMRA to indicate an intent to abrogate the statutory right to sue in federal court afforded by the Seaman’s Wage Act.” [Slip op. 3].
On the other hand, in discussing the Convention, the Court
determined that “Congress explicitly agreed to ‘recognize an agreement in writing
under which the parties undertake to submit to arbitration all or any
differences which have arisen . . . between them in respect of a defined legal
relationship, whether contractual or not, concerning a subject matter capable
of settlement by arbitration.’ Convention, Article II(1). Indeed, the
Convention compels federal courts to direct qualifying disputes to
arbitration.” In light of this distinction the Court held that “to nullify the
arbitration provision here would hinder the purpose of the Convention and
subvert congressional intent.” [Slip op. 4].
Citation: Lobo v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 488 F.3d
891 (11th Cir. 2007).
